0
Vcolts Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
Tense Q
Ex. He was a teacher who loved to read.
Ex. He was a teacher who loves to read.
Q. Now, if you assume that he still lives and does love to read (even though you met him 5~7 years ago), you can keep it in present tense for the who clause right?
If you don't know if he is living or not and you met him several years ago, you should put it in past tense, right?
Thanks in advance.
Ex. He was a teacher who loves to read.
Q. Now, if you assume that he still lives and does love to read (even though you met him 5~7 years ago), you can keep it in present tense for the who clause right?
If you don't know if he is living or not and you met him several years ago, you should put it in past tense, right?
Thanks in advance.
Top answer
vcolts He was a teacher who loved to read. I would use the example shown above in both cases. CJ
- vcolts He was a teacher who loved to read.
- I would use the example shown above in both cases.
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
vcoltsHe was a teacher who loved to read.I would use the example shown above in both cases.
CJ
00
CalifJim vcoltsHe was a teacher who loved to read.I would use the example shown above in both cases.CJbut if the case is that the person knows for a certain that he is alive and it is, lets say only 3 years ago?
I would keep it in present tense, if so. You would argue otherwise?
Even If it's still a fact that he still loves?
00
If we are placing his being a teacher in the past, then we are likely to place his loving reading in the past.
00
fivejedjonIf we are placing his being a teacher in the past, then we are likely to place his loving reading in the past.If so, even if the teacher is still a teacher (alive and kicking) and loves reading, we can still put the entire sentence in the past tense when talking about the past (memory/experience), right?
00
vcoltsEven If it's still a fact that he still loves?Yes. A past tense in a subordinate clause after a past tense main clause does not force us to conclude that the information in the subordinate clause is no longer true.
— Jack got every answer right on the math test!
— I'm not surprised. I (have) always thought he wa
00
Good point,
but in the following example:
"I could see that the community has a long history. "
We can mix in the above case, right?
and if we put it in the past tense, it "does not" mean that the history is no longer continuing?
but in the following example:
"I could see that the community has a long history. "
We can mix in the above case, right?
and if we put it in the past tense, it "does not" mean that the history is no longer continuing?
00
vcoltsI could see that the community has a long history.It's not wrong, but I'd say one of these:
I can see that the community has a long history.
I could see that the community had a long history.
vcoltsif we put it in the past tense, it "does not" mean that the history is no longer continuing?True.
0
Related Questions